Main Menu

Share this post...

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

The United
States has
lost its center through destructive centrifugal politics. America seems spinning out of control. It has become a non-populist,
dollar-driven, elitist democracy. Centrism can be a powerful metaphor and tool for national renewal, if it
is also populist.
In the world of politics, language is used to deceive,
distract and divide. Some words
become so abused that they lose meaning. In recent years, enormous numbers of liberals and Democrats decided to
hide under the label of â€œprogressive.â€ Many politicians want to be seen as â€œmoderates.â€ A newer subterfuge is
â€œcentrist.â€

Manipulative Centrism

Someone wrote this on a blog
discussion: â€œCentrism is an empty, contentless label that by its very nature is
without substance or ideology. What is the centrist position on heathcare
reform, half way between the left and right? What is its position on defense
spending, ditto? Someone, please,
tell me what centrism is?â€ It was a
good point and question.

Centrism sounds reasonable. But it has been abused. Many people see centrism as some middle
ground between the liberal-Democratic and conservative-Republican ends of the
political spectrum, some way to achieve balance and avoid extremes. By shunning these polarizing positions
it is hoped that a moderate, middle of the road or â€œthird wayâ€ stance is
created. But centrism may be
nothing more than empty compromises of positions from each of the two major
parties. It too easily becomes a
diffuse, ambiguous mishmash of positions that say little about where someone
stands in terms of absolute principles. Indeed, many find centrism attractive because it is malleable and
flexible, allowing whatever seems pragmatic at the time. This makes centrism vulnerable to abuse
by those seeking a popular political brand that is not burdened by adherence to
clear principles. For the most part, centrism has been empty political
rhetoric, but it can be re-powered.

After the 2004 election Kevin Cassell
made noted: â€œCentrism is not a clear-cut ideology (or belief system); many
encyclopedias don't even include it as a category unto itself." And David Sirota wrote the hard-hitting
article â€œDebunking Centrism.â€ He
said the Democratic Leadership Council â€œis funded by
huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and
Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash.
Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the
guise of â€˜centrismâ€™ while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist
Democrats as far-left extremists. â€¦centrist groups argue that the party
must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and
South.â€™" Later, in Hostile Takeover he pointed out how
ultra-conservative right-wingers hijacked the terms "centrist" and "mainstream,"
misleading the public.

Like other terms, centrist has become
another linguistic weapon of mass deception when used by mainstream
politicians. Is Joe Lieberman a
genuine centrist or just a conservative Democrat? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a centrist, or
just clever enough to abandon some of his principles? Does calling Hillary Clinton a centrist
make her more appealing?
Commenting on what appeared to be the
winning Democratic strategy before this yearâ€™s midterm elections, Sally Kohn
said: â€œCentrism not only alienates the Democratic base but also plays into the
Right wing's ultimate agenda. â€¦
Centrism is not a â€˜third wayâ€™, it's their way -- taking Right wing ideas and
trying to pass them off as enlightened Democratic compromise.â€

There is a lot of expedient
and faux centrism. Vermontâ€™s Senator-elect Bernie Sanders, officially an Independent,
said: â€œThere is
one point I want to make clear because all too often I see this discussion of
progressivism vs centrism as merely one of gaining tactical advantage in an
election. I am a progressive because that is what I believe at my
core. It is not some position of convenience to be shed the next time some
Washington wonk decides it's more advantageous to be a centrist.â€
Unlike Sanders, Bill Clinton
used centrism as a campaign tactic. In Dead Center James MacGregor
Burns and Georgia Sorenson made the point: â€œClintonâ€™s major failure was his
inabilityâ€¦ to frame a coordinated policy program that would make of his centrism
not just an electoral strategy but a vital center of changeâ€¦â€ Other authors embrace centrism, mostly
on the basis that it is an alternative to divisive and extreme political
positions. Yet the nagging question
remains: What exactly and uniquely defines real, trustworthy centrism?
In sum, â€œpartisan centrism,â€ viewed
as the center region along an axis of left-right, blue-red partisan issues,
supports the two-party status quo. It is defeatist. It protects
the elitist political, economic and bipartisan ruling class. The center should not be a statistical
mean, but an ideological imperative. Phony partisan centrism does not merit public support.

Listen to Sirota: â€œCentrismâ€ as defined in the political
dialogue today means â€œbeing in the middle of elite opinion in
Washington,
D.C.â€ But if you plot this â€œcenterâ€ on the
continuum that is American public opinion, you will find that it is nowhere near
the actual center of the country at large. The center of elite
Washington opinion is ardently
free trade, against national health care, opposed to market regulation, for
continuing the Iraq War, and supportive of the flattest tax structure weâ€™ve had
in contemporary American history. That center is on the extreme fringe of the
center of American public opinion, which is ardently skeptical of free trade,
for universal health care, supportive of strong market regulations, insistent
that the war end soon, and in favor of making the tax system more
progressive.

Centrism At Its Best

Unity through centripetal politics is a necessary
alternative to destructive and divisive centrifugal politics. Centrism can pull Americans together to
fill the currently empty national spiritual and political center.

In searching for real centrism worthy
of broad public support it helps to distinguish between divisive political
â€œissuesâ€ versus structural or systemic problems and their solutions.

From a marketing perspective, to differentiate themselves,
at least during campaigns, Democrats and Republicans use social, economic and
government issues for which they can stake out seemingly different
positions. Abortion, illegal
immigration, the
Iraq war,
globalization, taxes, health care costs, and same sex marriage are divisive
issues. Issues are usually framed
so that people can say they are for or against something. Issues are meant to elicit quick,
emotional responses that get people lined up with one party or candidate and
antagonistic toward the other. Issues produce polarizing partisan politics. They divide by design.

Alternatively, we can start with the evidence that our
political-government-economic system is broken. A key symptom is an epidemic of
existential emptiness. There is
little holding
America and
Americans together other than materialistic consumption.

Root problems have cascading impacts throughout
society. A majority of Americans
believe our national system has been seriously degraded over time and is stuck
on the wrong track. Besides
consistent results from polls and surveys, there is the unsettling fact that,
even in this year of heightened political events and talk, 60 percent of
eligible voters chose not to vote. This negative reality defines a remarkable opportunity to build
widespread public agreement about solutions to core problems - to create an
incentive to vote by giving people more political choice. We need a political party to help
Americans fill our empty national center with meaning.

For convenience, letâ€™s call real, trustworthy centrism
â€œpopulist centrism.â€ It is defined
by what is central to and in the center of public consciousness â€“ our broken
system. It offers a true, sorely
needed paradigm change. Consider
that when asked whether life for the next generation would be better, worse or
about the same as life today, 40 percent of Americans said "worse," while just
30 percent answered "better." The
fraction of Americans that believe the country is heading in the wrong direction
is a disturbing 60 percent! A
nation that has lost its center creates widespread despair, pessimism and ennui
that even compulsive consumption cannot remedy, though it certainly distracts
from distasteful realities. And
thatâ€™s what plutocrats prefer â€“ a voracious consumer economy, people hooked on
borrowing and spending rather than being politically engaged.

Authentic, populist centrism has the
capacity to unite Americans, despite differences on issues, in a battle to make
politics, government and the economy serve working- and middle-class
people. All but the upper class can
see the prime root problem: Politics, government and the economy now primarily
serve the greed, demands, and selfishness of a class of rich and powerful
elites, often acting through corporate powers, PACs and sanctimonious think
tanks. Elitist interests have
turned American democracy into a plutocracy. Private and corporate wealth has been
turned into political power, government control and economic inequality. We have an aristocratic ruling
class.

Ordinary people retain many personal freedoms, but our
representative government no longer represents them. The minority that
own most of
America control
it, while the majority drive the economy through their spending.
Millions of wealthy Americans vote. But much less than a majority of
working- and middle-class people take placebo voting seriously. The
USA has become a
non-populist democracy.

The Political Solution

How do we politicize the publicâ€™s negative feelings? How do we get more Americans engaged
politically, enough to take voting for third parties seriously and reject
lesser-evil voting for major party candidates â€“ to take back the sovereign power
that is theirs?

To fix our nation we must remove control of
OUR political system by the two major parties. Many rightfully see the
Republican and
Democratic parties as just two sides of the same coin or two heads of
the same beast. Howard Dean was correct when he wrote in 2004: "After
nearly a
decade of widening income inequalities, campaign-finance scandals,
noxious
inside-the-Beltway compromises, and political catfights ... the
American people
felt equally disenfranchised by Democrats and Republicans." A 2006
national poll found that 53 percent of Americans supported a third
major
party. A remarkable 73 percent
agree that â€œit would be a good idea for this country to have more
choices in the
2008 election than just Republican and Democratic candidates.â€

A majority of people want
more political competition. Yet historyâ€™s lesson is that third
parties have done very poorly in challenging the two-party duopoly. That is not their fault. The two-party mafia has rigged the
political system to bury opposition. Despite historic levels of public dissatisfaction with both major
parties, in the 2006 midterm elections there was no mass embrace of third party
candidates, which largely remained unknown to the public. Considering the staying power of the
two-party duopoly, would deceptive-partisan or honest-populist centrism best
challenge it?

Clearly, populist centrism is a truer, bolder alternative. It can bring us back to a populist
democracy. Fixing the republic is a
nobler, more necessary and better unifying goal than reaching compromises on a
host of issues framed by the major parties. With populist centrism, the public can
rally behind a patriotic movement to fix our democracy, political system and
economy. Just as individuals think
in terms of centering themselves to become healthier psychologically, with
honest centrism so too can our country center itself, connect to its roots,
unite itself, and harness people power to repair and renovate itself. United, Americans can challenge the
power of political, economic and corporate elites.

With honesty we can reach consensus on how to fix the
broken system, return power to the people, make representative democracy work,
and remove the corrupting influence of big money on the whole
political-government-economic system. The goal is systemic change and national renewal through revolutionary
reform that includes overturning the two-party status quo.

The
two major parties cannot admit that the whole
political-government-economic system is seriously broken. Why? Over
decades they each contributed to
breaking the system. In their own
ways, each major party has been permanently corrupted by big money from
corporate and other special interests. Each has contributed to a
culture of corruption and dishonesty. They enable each other. The only
competition they want is from
each other. They have sold out
Americans.

After the 2004 election Sirota warned about
â€œbankrolled politicians who have hijacked â€˜centrismâ€™
to sell out America's middle class.â€ Caution is needed about this
yearâ€™s big Democratic win. As to
Democratic candidates, pragmatism ruled the day; they said whatever was
necessary to win. As to voters,
hatred of President Bush, his policies and the
Iraq war
prevailed. The Democrats won a majority of just 40 percent of the
voting electorate, perhaps 25 percent of the total. That is not much of a public
mandate.

A third political party can emerge to steer public debate
on the exact reforms and solutions needed to fix our broken country. It can define itself in a principled way
to attract the majority of Americans â€“ not stuck on extreme positions â€“ that
want profound national improvement. It can set out a strategy to get the nation on a new track to a better
future, using a new dimension, not the tired and corrupt left and right parallel
tracks of Democrats and Republicans. It can make centrism a trusted political philosophy as well as the
defining character of a competitive political party.

With honesty, a third party can overcome the
damage done to worthy concepts of centrism, progressivism, and populism by many
groups and people practicing semantic chicanery. We desperately need candidates that are
not shills for elites, but who will unflinchingly serve the interests of
working- and middle-class Americans. We must imagine success: A third party that leads a rebooting of American
democracy. Strong public thirst for
historic change is real. A majority
of Americans agree that our system is broken. They await a competitive third party
with a fix-our-democracy message. Democrats and Republicans should NOT be allowed to keep their
stranglehold on OUR political system when they no longer have the consent of
most of the governed.

The majority of Americans have decided. A democracy with too little political
competition provides too little incentive to vote. It is a delusional, centerless,
non-populist democracy. Letâ€™s fix
it by joining together at the center.